https://metsantarinoita.blogspot.com/
Kimmo Huosionmaa
There are always persons, who are telling about discussions with political leaders, and those discussions are sometimes very interesting. That person who tells interesting things is probably the director of some big company, but in this text, I use the politician as an example, what could happen if there is no evidence about some things, what are mentioned in the articles. And when we are talking about political leadership and the support from the politician, we must first realize, that the conclusion of the support would be made the politician self.
The first thing, what journalist must remember, is that the politician is responsible to his own electors. This is the reason, why they are not trying to please journalists. But when some journalist claims something, must this person realize, that if there is no evidence about the discussion, would that politician claim something else after the meeting. Political memory is very good, but it's selective, and if there is no so-called hard evidence about the meetings, will everything that is told about the discussions be claiming.
And this is why the words, what the politician says must not put to the newspapers. The question about this is that there are two sides in those meetings. And the opponent is responsible to voters. That means that if the journalist is writing something in the newspaper, the question is "who actually says that"? If there are no films about this kind of things, would the opponent claim, that other persons will be invented all story.
In the history of newspapers is always mentioned, that some business boss or politician is said something stupid. In those cases, the key elements are, is that person told truth to that politician? And the second one is, of course, are those words, what are printed in the newspaper actually said by those politicians, or are they invented by the journalist, who is writing about the article. If there is no evidence about it, would those words be only claiming, and in the worst case, that can bring prosecutions against that writer. The witnesses are not so-called "hard evidence". They can forget what is discussed about the thing, what is written in the newspaper, and also they would not probably hear the words, what are used.
Kimmo Huosionmaa
There are always persons, who are telling about discussions with political leaders, and those discussions are sometimes very interesting. That person who tells interesting things is probably the director of some big company, but in this text, I use the politician as an example, what could happen if there is no evidence about some things, what are mentioned in the articles. And when we are talking about political leadership and the support from the politician, we must first realize, that the conclusion of the support would be made the politician self.
The first thing, what journalist must remember, is that the politician is responsible to his own electors. This is the reason, why they are not trying to please journalists. But when some journalist claims something, must this person realize, that if there is no evidence about the discussion, would that politician claim something else after the meeting. Political memory is very good, but it's selective, and if there is no so-called hard evidence about the meetings, will everything that is told about the discussions be claiming.
And this is why the words, what the politician says must not put to the newspapers. The question about this is that there are two sides in those meetings. And the opponent is responsible to voters. That means that if the journalist is writing something in the newspaper, the question is "who actually says that"? If there are no films about this kind of things, would the opponent claim, that other persons will be invented all story.
In the history of newspapers is always mentioned, that some business boss or politician is said something stupid. In those cases, the key elements are, is that person told truth to that politician? And the second one is, of course, are those words, what are printed in the newspaper actually said by those politicians, or are they invented by the journalist, who is writing about the article. If there is no evidence about it, would those words be only claiming, and in the worst case, that can bring prosecutions against that writer. The witnesses are not so-called "hard evidence". They can forget what is discussed about the thing, what is written in the newspaper, and also they would not probably hear the words, what are used.
Comments
Post a Comment